Work Engagement Scale: Construct Validity and Reliability in the Colombian Organizational Context.

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Psychological Research Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.21500/20112084.6408
Claudia Marcela Arana-Medina, Lucila Cárdenas-Niño, Juan Diego Betancur-Arias, Paula Andrea Montoya-Zuluaga
{"title":"Work Engagement Scale: Construct Validity and Reliability in the Colombian Organizational Context.","authors":"Claudia Marcela Arana-Medina,&nbsp;Lucila Cárdenas-Niño,&nbsp;Juan Diego Betancur-Arias,&nbsp;Paula Andrea Montoya-Zuluaga","doi":"10.21500/20112084.6408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This manuscript shows the results of the evidence of content and internal structure obtained from an instrument to measure work engagement. This instrument is aimed at workers of Colombian labor organizations that belong to different economic sectors (commerce, services, education, and health). The instrument was designed based on the postulates of cognitive theory and is structured into three factors that operationalize the construct: (a) behavioral dimension (15 items), (b) affective dimension (16 items), and (c) cognitive dimension (14 items), for a total of 45 items. The results of the content evidence through expert judgment suggested the elimination of three items, due to ambiguity and lack of clarity, leaving the 42item test. After this evidence, the instrument was piloted in a sample of 460 participants. The item-test correlation analysis recommended the elimination of one item due to its low correlation with the factor. The evidence of internal structure through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) proposed a three-factor structure, with an explained variance of 63%; 9 items were eliminated due to high residual. The fit indicators showed a GFI = .99; and those of residual showed a RMSR =.03 and Kelley = .04; each factor obtained an ordinal Cronbach's Alpha of .95 (behavioral), .97 (affective), and .87 (cognitive). These results indicate precision in the measurement and consistency of the items to measure each of the factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":46542,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychological Research","volume":"16 1","pages":"114-125"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e4/83/2011-2084-ijpr-16-01-114.PMC10402639.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychological Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.6408","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This manuscript shows the results of the evidence of content and internal structure obtained from an instrument to measure work engagement. This instrument is aimed at workers of Colombian labor organizations that belong to different economic sectors (commerce, services, education, and health). The instrument was designed based on the postulates of cognitive theory and is structured into three factors that operationalize the construct: (a) behavioral dimension (15 items), (b) affective dimension (16 items), and (c) cognitive dimension (14 items), for a total of 45 items. The results of the content evidence through expert judgment suggested the elimination of three items, due to ambiguity and lack of clarity, leaving the 42item test. After this evidence, the instrument was piloted in a sample of 460 participants. The item-test correlation analysis recommended the elimination of one item due to its low correlation with the factor. The evidence of internal structure through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) proposed a three-factor structure, with an explained variance of 63%; 9 items were eliminated due to high residual. The fit indicators showed a GFI = .99; and those of residual showed a RMSR =.03 and Kelley = .04; each factor obtained an ordinal Cronbach's Alpha of .95 (behavioral), .97 (affective), and .87 (cognitive). These results indicate precision in the measurement and consistency of the items to measure each of the factors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
工作投入量表:结构效度和信度在哥伦比亚组织情境下。
这份手稿显示了从测量工作投入的仪器中获得的内容和内部结构证据的结果。该文书的对象是属于不同经济部门(商业、服务、教育和卫生)的哥伦比亚劳工组织的工人。该工具是根据认知理论的假设设计的,并分为三个因素来实现结构:(a)行为维度(15个项目),(b)情感维度(16个项目)和(c)认知维度(14个项目),共45个项目。经专家判断的内容证据结果建议剔除3项,因歧义和不够清晰,留下42项测试。在此证据之后,该仪器在460名参与者的样本中试用。项目检验相关分析建议取消一个项目,因为它与因素的相关性较低。探索性因子分析(EFA)对内部结构的证据提出了三因素结构,解释方差为63%;9项因残留高淘汰。拟合指标GFI = 0.99;残差的RMSR =。03和Kelley = .04;每个因素的顺序Cronbach's Alpha分别为0.95(行为)、0.97(情感)和0.87(认知)。这些结果表明测量的精度和测量每个因素的项目的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Psychological Research
International Journal of Psychological Research PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
22
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Psychological Research (Int.j.psychol.res) is the Faculty of Psychology’s official publication of San Buenaventura University in Medellin, Colombia. Int.j.psychol.res relies on a vast and diverse theoretical and thematic publishing material, which includes unpublished productions of diverse psychological issues and behavioral human areas such as psychiatry, neurosciences, mental health, among others.
期刊最新文献
Voluntary Ethanol Intake and Anxiety Behavior in Wistar-Uis Rats. Gaslighting Exposure During Emerging Adulthood: Personality Traits and Vulnerability Paths. Validity and Internal Consistency of a Spanish Version of the Cognitive Flexibil ity Scale (CFS). Attitudes of the Host Population towards Syrian Refugees: A New Theoretical Perspective Translation of Well-being Assessment Instruments in African Contexts: A Mapping Review and Future Directions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1